• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Twilight for Twinkies? Hostess Workers Strike as Company Struggles

Tommy Boy worked for two companies (union shops) that told their workers the same thing: take concessions or we are going to have to close the plant. In each case, the unions said, "You're liars!!" In both cases, the plants closed. On the second one, Tom believed them and tried to talk to other workers. They'd have none of it. Their union said, "Strike!" They struck. The company closed three or four months later. Pensions taken over by the PBGC, retiree healthcare lost . . . what a tragedy.

These workers are foolish, in my opinion. Their unions should be working with the company, not against it.

Union members never believe what the company says right up to the point where the company closes and they lose their job and much of their pension. The whole union ethos encourages this sort of adversarial relationship.

It's time that Wagner Act unionism was brought to an end. The government has taken over the task of protecting workers anyway.
 
I think these companies run into the very same thing my small company ran into. As employees stayed with my company longer and longer, their raises finally priced them out of the job they held. After a year, an employee doing a rote job is pretty well trained. After 20 years, why should he be making three times what I can hire a new person for?

Should we really be rewarding longevity alone? Does that make economic sense to you?

Neither does the fact that Hostess has been put through bankrupcty a few times before in just the recent past. What has management done during the last period, how much if any money did the PE funds take out of Hostess, how did they get a $700 million dollar loan without fixing the problems the last time they went bankrupt. I would not be suprised if alot of money was paid out to the investors
 
I think these companies run into the very same thing my small company ran into. As employees stayed with my company longer and longer, their raises finally priced them out of the job they held. After a year, an employee doing a rote job is pretty well trained. After 20 years, why should he be making three times what I can hire a new person for?

Should we really be rewarding longevity alone? Does that make economic sense to you?

On the last job I got, as a nurse (my current one), starting pay was based on career years, with 8 years as an RN being the max starting pay. I (at the time) had been a registered nurse for 22 years, so I naturally was maxed from the start, with the exception of yearly across the board pay raises, for every employee in the hospital, based on a yearly job performance review. There really is no sensible reason to pay anyone with 22 years of experience any more than a nurse with 8 years of experience, as we are doing the exact same job. It seems like a happy medium from my standpoint.
 
Neither does the fact that Hostess has been put through bankrupcty a few times before in just the recent past. What has management done during the last period, how much if any money did the PE funds take out of Hostess, how did they get a $700 million dollar loan without fixing the problems the last time they went bankrupt. I would not be suprised if alot of money was paid out to the investors

I don't know the details and neither do any of us. But what we do know is that the union recommended a strike that is more than likely going to put this company out of business.

As LowDown says above, the complete adversarial relationship has got to stop. Hostess financials are public record. Their bankruptcy proceedings are public record. The union recommended a strike. Was that the wise move? Time will tell, I guess:

In July, 2012, the New York Post reported that negotiations (lead by Silver Point Capital) with the Teamsters Union were close to a possible agreement that could allow Hostess Brands to cut employee pay and benefits, if the company maintained funding of existing pension plans. In May, all 19,000 workers had been warned (as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) that they could face a mass layoff. In an email to the Appeal-Democrat Hostess spokesman Erik Halvorson said that the May notices were to alert employees to possible sale or wind down of the company, but that "our goal is still to emerge from bankruptcy as a growing company with a strong future." These layoff notices listed the dates as July 7-21, but on July 5 another company spokesman told the Financial News & Daily Record that there were no immediate plans to start laying off Hostess employees.[17] In November 2012, Hostess employees nationwide went on strike. The Bakery, Confectionery, and Tobacco Workers International union, which represents 6,600 Hostess employees, took the strike action after the latest contract proposal from Hostess Brands was rejected by 92 percent of its members. In response, Hostess Brands issued the following statement:"A widespread strike will cause Hostess brands to liquidate if we are unable to produce or deliver products. If that's the case, the company will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,300-member workforce and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders. We urge our employees to remain on the job to rebuild the company.
 
I don't know the details and neither do any of us. But what we do know is that the union recommended a strike that is more than likely going to put this company out of business.

As LowDown says above, the complete adversarial relationship has got to stop. Hostess financials are public record. Their bankruptcy proceedings are public record. The union recommended a strike. Was that the wise move? Time will tell, I guess:

Frankly, what unions are eventually going to realize, is that they have priced themselves out of the market in many cases. I think it's pretty sad, but I would bet those same union members eagerly buy cheap crap made overseas or in Mexico, so essentially they aren't willing to support their bretheren American workers.
 
I predict that riotous mayhem will ensue if Americans no longer have access to Twinkies. We may even have a nuclear holocaust.

If so, Twinkies might be one of only a few things that survive. At least the roaches will have something to eat!
 
Sorry - but they've done little to prevent the inevitable over all these years.

They have seen the entire health of the nation shift.
Everyone has taken on new and different snack options.
And they responded by doing what - nothing.
They have had the same snacks and breads . . . they've done little to change with society's interests and preferences.

Change - is essential to keep a business going.

And you know - Twinkies are the only thing they make that I eat - I don't like any of their breads and I don't need ding dongs and hohos (which are just disgusting). Everyone got fat - went on a carb-free diet - or went to fresh fruits and veggies - and abandoned a lot of breaded goods in general . . . and they did what exactly?

They should have slowly shut down and reorganized their business structure over the last 10 years as people became more and more health-conscientious.

WHAT! Wait I love Ding Dongs....I don't think they are disgusting at all....the kids at my sons college make fried Twinkie's....they roll them in pancake batter and deep fry them....:mrgreen::tongue4: As for everyone eating veggies instead....have you looked around lately....we are a very fat nation....and lots of bread eaters.....IMO I think what they needed to do was more advertising on TV.....I don't think I have seen an advertisement in for ever....Anyway...I will miss my Ding Dongs and other chic. cup cakes.....
 
Just this one plant closed - this one production facility . . . because everyone went on strike and no one was working.

They have numerous other places still making them.
 
Just this one plant closed - this one production facility . . . because everyone went on strike and no one was working.

They have numerous other places still making them.

They are going to liquidate the entire company Nov 20th if the strike doesn't end.

The three closings seem to be a show of how serious they are about the liquidation.

The Union has to suck it up or lose their jobs at this point. Hostess won the right to cut wages in bankruptcy court. That's quite a bit different than the big bad corporation screwing it's employees for the sake of profits.
 
They are going to liquidate the entire company Nov 20th if the strike doesn't end.

The three closings seem to be a show of how serious they are about the liquidation.

The Union has to suck it up or lose their jobs at this point. Hostess won the right to cut wages in bankruptcy court. That's quite a bit different than the big bad corporation screwing it's employees for the sake of profits.

Those employees should feel privileged to be making Twinkies for the rest of us, I mean come on! :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom